Fred Bauder, I like black people but ... Options

[EricBarbour]

This stuff is only OCD if it interferes with your life. OCD is abnormal amounts of a perfectly normal impulse. People who have NONE of this impulse are like children. They're also unemployable, since all jobs worth anything involve cleaning up one mess or another (whether on a hard drive, a network, or in Aisle 9).

Now, we've all cleaned up messes as volunteers. Beer cans and soft drink cups in a park that need to go in the trash. If you do that yourself, you don't say: "I'm doing this for Jesus, to earn my place in Heaven!" Nor do you tell yourself that you're on a quest for Humanity. You just think "What an eyesore-- some drunk person or some kid didn't clean up their mess, so some responsible adult has to do it for them..."

Okay, now suppose we see somebody ELSE pick up the soft drink cup at the park and trash it? Do we say: "What a dweeb! That guy must have NO LIFE. He's doing the city's JOB for them, without being PAID. What an idiot. I'll bet he lives in his mother's basement. It probably gives him a big sense of authority to do a city job, like he actually HAD a job.... "

You know, playing devil's advocate, that would really be unfair. As also, any smart remarks about how the guy probably thinks he's being a Great Altruist (like this is helping the starving in Africa-- not), when actually he's merely satisfying his sick obsessiveness about orderliness at the park, or maybe just wasting his valuable time. Or, if he's doing it with a friend, that maybe this is just a mask for a social activity, and gets him no points at all therefore, for being a good-guy.

[Kelly Martin]

We may not always recognise altruism, or what an editor believes to be altruism, when we see it. Suppose someone firmly believes that he has the truth and the majority are fools, liars or whatever who don't know the truth or are trying to hide it. He will altruistically want to publicise the truth on WP and push aside those who would prevent him. We see not altruism but POV pushing. Similarly, someone may believe that a topic is vital and must be advertised via WP. We see fancruft. A large enough dose of AGF changes our perspective. (That's not to suggest for a minute that all POV pushers or fancruft specialists are altruists!)

Indeed. Just as altruistic intent does not guarantee that an editor's contributions will be beneficial, neither does a lack of it guarantee that they'll be harmful. In fact, the dedicated hobbyists are often the best editors, as they have the potential for combining a wide scope of knowledge of a particular topic with a lack of pecuniary interest in forwarding any particular point of view, even though their editing is mainly driven by self-interest.

There's nothing wrong with contributing to Wikipedia nonaltruistically. However, I think it's important to recognize that a lot of Wikipedia's editors aren't volunteers, but instead customers, and I think it's wholly dishonest for Wikipedia to claim tax-exempt charity status when what it really is something closer in nature to my amateur radio club (a 501-c-4 non-profit): a group of people who pool resources to enable a pursuit in a common interest principally for their own (nonmaterial) benefit, rather than for the benefit of some broader community.

[Abd]

Brilliant. Elegant in its simplicity. Easy to read. Says a lot with very few words. Adb and Ottova should both read and study this article.

Who is Ottova?

Who is Adb?

[Milton Roe]

There's nothing wrong with contributing to Wikipedia nonaltruistically. However, I think it's important to recognize that a lot of Wikipedia's editors aren't volunteers, but instead customers, and I think it's wholly dishonest for Wikipedia to claim tax-exempt charity status when what it really is something closer in nature to my amateur radio club (a 501-c-4 non-profit): a group of people who pool resources to enable a pursuit in a common interest principally for their own (nonmaterial) benefit, rather than for the benefit of some broader community.

Well, WR here is more like your radio club. The difference is that WP produces more of a product. It's like Habitat for Humanity: at the end of the day, no matter how much the volunteers enjoyed themselves, or how crappy the house is, there's still that house. How are you going to apprortion that part of the work that was fun and the part that was "common interest" vs. the part that was "community service"?

"You had too damn much fun on this project, so we're not letting you deduct the money you spent"
"Yeah, I had fun! I learned drywalling and met a better class of people, including my future wife..."
"Well, then you really, REALLY can't deduct it!!!"

[thekohser]

Once again, Fred Bauder opines on one of his favorite subjects, what the "Black folk" like and dislike:

Facebook, and Twitter, big with Black folk, gives people something they
can relate to. Wikipedia is as dry as reading, or writing, an
encyclopedia.

In a sense they ate our lunch, but millions of Facebook-like user pages
can hardly be justified as a basis for charitable donations.

Fred

[LessHorrid vanU]

There's nothing wrong with contributing to Wikipedia nonaltruistically. However, I think it's important to recognize that a lot of Wikipedia's editors aren't volunteers, but instead customers, and I think it's wholly dishonest for Wikipedia to claim tax-exempt charity status when what it really is something closer in nature to my amateur radio club (a 501-c-4 non-profit): a group of people who pool resources to enable a pursuit in a common interest principally for their own (nonmaterial) benefit, rather than for the benefit of some broader community.

Well, WR here is more like your radio club. The difference is that WP produces more of a product. It's like Habitat for Humanity: at the end of the day, no matter how much the volunteers enjoyed themselves, or how crappy the house is, there's still that house. How are you going to apprortion that part of the work that was fun and the part that was "common interest" vs. the part that was "community service"?

"You had too damn much fun on this project, so we're not letting you deduct the money you spent"
"Yeah, I had fun! I learned drywalling and met a better class of people, including my future wife..."
"Well, then you really, REALLY can't deduct it!!!"

"Habitat for Humanity..."? How ironic.

Once again, Fred Bauder opines on one of his favorite subjects, what the "Black folk" like and dislike:

Facebook, and Twitter, big with Black folk, gives people something they
can relate to. Wikipedia is as dry as reading, or writing, an
encyclopedia.

In a sense they ate our lunch, but millions of Facebook-like user pages
can hardly be justified as a basis for charitable donations.

Fred

I think it is more reprehensible than you imply; I sense that Southern Fried Fred is suggesting that "Black folk" are not sophisticated enough to be interested in editing an encyclopedia, but preferring the less mentally strenuous activity of commenting on fb and twitter.

[Milton Roe]

Once again, Fred Bauder opines on one of his favorite subjects, what the "Black folk" like and dislike:

Facebook, and Twitter, big with Black folk, gives people something they
can relate to. Wikipedia is as dry as reading, or writing, an
encyclopedia.

Fred

They twitter about watermellon and McDonald's, too. "Facebook: I'm lovin' it." Oh, wait, that one's been used.

Fred, since we have such a dry vanilla WP, perhaps you could start a chocolate-dipped version. "Soulpedia"? Long as we straight where brothas hang, what yo candyass care what the sucka's called?

[Mathsci]

Once again, Fred Bauder opines on one of his favorite subjects, what the "Black folk" like and dislike:

Facebook, and Twitter, big with Black folk, gives people something they
can relate to. Wikipedia is as dry as reading, or writing, an
encyclopedia.

In a sense they ate our lunch, but millions of Facebook-like user pages
can hardly be justified as a basis for charitable donations.

Fred

Interesting that he made this statement after he appeared as an adjudicator on race matters on the Arbitration Enforcement noticeboard.

[EricBarbour]

Oooh! That's a goooood one!

If Fred had said that on TV, radio, or in a newspaper or magazine article, people would be screaming for his head right now. On a stick.

But no, he said it on obscure, nerd-heavy Wikipedia. On one of their internal mailing lists, even. No one notices or cares.

I wonder if I should tell some civil-rights activists about this......

This post has been edited by EricBarbour: Mon 4th July 2011, 9:04pm

[HRIP7]

Once again, Fred Bauder opines on one of his favorite subjects, what the "Black folk" like and dislike:

Facebook, and Twitter, big with Black folk, gives people something they
can relate to. Wikipedia is as dry as reading, or writing, an
encyclopedia.

In a sense they ate our lunch, but millions of Facebook-like user pages
can hardly be justified as a basis for charitable donations.

Fred

Fred seems correctly informed though.

[LessHorrid vanU]

Once again, Fred Bauder opines on one of his favorite subjects, what the "Black folk" like and dislike:

Facebook, and Twitter, big with Black folk, gives people something they
can relate to. Wikipedia is as dry as reading, or writing, an
encyclopedia.

In a sense they ate our lunch, but millions of Facebook-like user pages
can hardly be justified as a basis for charitable donations.

Fred

Fred seems correctly informed though.

Those links, especially the first, point out the dynamics why a higher proportion of black Americans may be involved in Twitter than their representation in the general population may otherwise indicate, whereas Fred points out the "dry" nature of writing encyclopedia, which he infers is not attractive to the "Black folk". Now, there is a difference in how a set of information is being presented, and one of them speaks of an attitude that Black folk are less apt at certain situations. That attitude has a name. Prejudice.

[RMHED]

Once again, Fred Bauder opines on one of his favorite subjects, what the "Black folk" like and dislike:

Facebook, and Twitter, big with Black folk, gives people something they
can relate to. Wikipedia is as dry as reading, or writing, an
encyclopedia.

In a sense they ate our lunch, but millions of Facebook-like user pages
can hardly be justified as a basis for charitable donations.

Fred

Fred seems correctly informed though.

Those links, especially the first, point out the dynamics why a higher proportion of black Americans may be involved in Twitter than their representation in the general population may otherwise indicate, whereas Fred points out the "dry" nature of writing encyclopedia, which he infers is not attractive to the "Black folk". Now, there is a difference in how a set of information is being presented, and one of them speaks of an attitude that Black folk are less apt at certain situations. That attitude has a name. Prejudice.

Is Fred Bauder effectively saying "niggers are dumb" ?